This is all most amusing:
The joint letter states: \”Psychological care for those who are distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions has been shown to yield a range of beneficial client outcomes, especially in motivated clients … Such therapy does not produce harm despite the Royal College of Psychiatrists and others maintaining the contrary.\”
It concludes: \”Competent practitioners, including those working with biblical Judeo-Christian values, should be free to assist those seeking help.\”
Yes, it\’s woo doctors trying to convert those who are of Teh Gays into solid heterosexual citizens, \”solid citizens\” as defined by evangelical Christianity.
There\’s two sources of amusement. One, the undercover journo who started the whole thing by applying for such treatment:
In May 2009, Mr Strudwick attended a therapy session at Mrs Pilkington\’s private practice, based at her home in Chorleywood, Herts, and recorded the session on a tape machine strapped to his stomach.
On the tape, Mr Strudwick asks Mrs Pilkington if she views homosexuality as \”a mental illness, an addiction or an anti religious phenomenon\”. She replies: \”It is all of that.\”
Last year, Mr Strudwick said: \”Entering into therapy with somebody who thinks I am sick … is the singularly most chilling experience of my life.
Do stop being a twat laddie. Of course your therapist, your doctor, thinks you are sick. That\’s why you\’re there, in front of that therapist, doctor. If you weren\’t sick then both of you could be \’round the corner having a pint.
The other source of amusement is rather more subtle. We have these woo doctors who insist that being Teh Gay is something that is curable. We also have everyone else who insists that a) it\’s not something that needs to be cured and b) it\’s innate and thus not curable.
The amusing thing is that both are correct.
We can argue about quite how human sexuality is distributed (might be a normal distribution, might be like Matthew Parris thinks, more like the neck of a champagne bottle, his simile) but there\’s no doubt that there are those who are firmly same sex only, those who are firmly opposite sex only and a goodly number of those who are variable dependent upon chance, opportunity and situation. The difference in same sex behaviour among those in single sex and mixed sex environments is really all we need to know that.
Which means that there are those whose sexual behaviour, desires, are malleable and those whose such are not. There are men (alter as needed to describe women) who are only into getting it on with other men, who are never into such, who will if offered but not exclusively and those who will if no alternative presents itself. The first group aren\’t going to be changed by being hectored by some fundamentalist wingnut:
Homosexual men are sent on weekends away with heterosexual men to \”encourage their masculinity\” and \”in time to develop healthy relationships with women\”, said Mrs Pilkington.
Those who would regard that as an interesting dating opportunity.
There are also those in the latter two groups who might well change their behaviour (if not their inner desires) as a result of such \”therapy\”. To offer an analogy, there are those to whom celibacy is the natural state. There are those for which it most definitely is not but they accept it for some other reason: might be religious, might be temporary having committed to one and only one other from whom they are temporarily separated etc.
This middle group of any port in a storm could well be convinced that certain ports are not to be entertained for social, religious or other reasons. Not saying they should be, only that they could.
Which is, as I say, a source of some amusement. Both those who say that all same sex attraction is immutable and those who say that all is mutable are wrong. It really does depend upon where on that distribution of sexuality the individual is. Thus the \”therapy\” \”works\” for some and not for others.
Bit like most therapy in fact…..